slackassassin

Ya, kinda and it is a pretty funny answer. Jack uses a slightly different process called the Lincoln county process. Basically, they filter it through charcoal made from maple wood.

That still meets the requirements for Bourbon, but they wanted to have their own "Tennessee whiskey" definition that includes the Lincoln process. Although, I don't know who else uses it other than them and Dickle.

So, ya, bourbon subset that doesn't want to be called bourbon because it's Tennessee whiskey. Lol.

Ya, that's because it's not Bourbon. Which kinda proves the point, right.

Lol, what? You are just riding on some xenophobia tip or something. You know the fact that there is a ton of American whiskey that is not called bourbon kinda disproves your whole prejudice, right? Whatever, keep stewing in it I guess.

Yes, it must be made in the us. Scotch also has to be made in Scotland. But nobody is out here saying it's Scottish ego. They just know the flavor profile of scotch. But you can make similar things elsewhere, true.

No, not all whiskeys are required to be fermented in a new charred oak barrels. That's what produces the typical smokey flavor associated with bourbon. All bourbon is whiskey, but not all whiskey is bourbon. That's like saying all other grain whiskey that doesn't use corn is Scotch.

Straight bourbon is required to be 51% corn, aged in chared oak barrels for at least 2 years, and must be at least 80 proof.

Of course none of that makes it better, because it's just preferences like anything else anyway. But bourbon is its own thing.

It's because some people don't actually support workers, especially creative workers, regardless or their political identity.

abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or most importantly against people who have just the worst takes.

Hmmm, checks out. I guess the technology platform, YouTube, should get right on that too.

I'm sad now.

I wish I could sleep however much I want or need. That sounds lovely.

Starting wars, especially world wars, is bad. I don't know what else to tell you.

Other than individual countries can take action if they decide to.

Perhaps you could drum up popular support amongst your citizenry and convince them to start a war.

Certainly been done before, you'd be in good company.

You are advocating for a group of countries party to a defensive pact, going on the offensive, to perform a preemptive strike on a nuclear armed country. And arguing that the alternative could be ww3.

That is the same as saying starting ww3 is the only way to avoid ww3.

Might be time to end Nato

Increasingly less interestingly enough, also a Kremlin talking point.